Spec URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/sway-config-fedora/sway-config-fedora.spec SRPM URL: https://alebastr.fedorapeople.org/review/sway-config-fedora/sway-config-fedora-0.1.0-1.fc37.src.rpm Description: Fedora Sway Spin configuration for Sway Fedora Account System Username: alebastr
I think the package is mostly correct. Only thing: sddm-wayland-sway does not contain a license file, which I would be expecting. Best, Fale
Thanks! Added the missing %license and updated the files.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop- file-validate if there is such a file. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MIT License". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/fale/fedora/2154941-sway-config- fedora/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/sddm [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sddm- wayland-sway [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 2 sddm-wayland-sway.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib sway-config-fedora.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary start-sway sddm-wayland-sway.noarch: W: no-documentation sway-config-fedora.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://gitlab.com/fedora/sigs/sway/sway-config-fedora/-/archive/v0.1.0/sway-config-fedora-v0.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b117c593f0913a0948e7c1e93eb8bd3f79d7f3c6c34be383f64ab40d1520a8bf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b117c593f0913a0948e7c1e93eb8bd3f79d7f3c6c34be383f64ab40d1520a8bf Requires -------- sway-config-fedora (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pgrep /usr/bin/pkill /usr/bin/python3 /usr/bin/sh config(sway-config-fedora) desktop-backgrounds-compat grimshot light lxqt-policykit mesa-dri-drivers playerctl polkit pulseaudio-utils sway swaybg swayidle swaylock waybar xorg-x11-server-Xwayland sddm-wayland-sway (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh config(sddm-wayland-sway) lxqt-themes-fedora sddm sway Provides -------- sway-config-fedora: config(sway-config-fedora) sway-config sway-config-fedora sddm-wayland-sway: config(sddm-wayland-sway) sddm-greeter-displayserver sddm-wayland-sway Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2154941 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, Java, Perl, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Python, Ocaml, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sway-config-fedora
FEDORA-2023-6c020de84a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-6c020de84a
FEDORA-2023-6c020de84a has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.